1 INTRODUCTION TO LANDSCAPES AT WWF

INTRODUCTION BY ASHLEY BROOKS AND THIBAULT LEDECQ WWF takes a ‘landscape approach’ to much of its programmatic work on the ground globally. But what does this actually mean and how does this challenge or enable WWF to reach its goals? WWF’s site-based work on the ground recognizes the wider ecological and social contexts within which that site exists.

Transboundary landscapes exist simply because a political line happens to dissect an ecological landscape. Neighboring countries are therefore linked via environmental processes but may not in fact be jointly planning or managing for such transboundary processes. Transboundary conservation (TC) programs exist globally as they are seen to bring the neighbors together to develop processes for maintaining and enhancing environmental flows between them, as well as supporting sustainable development and cooperation in the same space. In many contexts however, the neighbors may be at very different stages of development; not be the best of friends; or have very different national policy agendas. There are two overarching reasons for focusing work at a landscape scale – ecological and socio-cultural.

Ecological: First, the scale of the conservation solution must match that of the problem or threats to the conservation target. Many of WWF’s key biodiversity areas, priority species (especially those with large home ranges or migration routes) and habitats, cover large areas that mean they invariably link, or converge, with human dominated areas. These large areas, or land and seascapes, can often be defined clearly by mapping their extent, migration routes (e.g. elephant, wildebeest, whales), or by doing genetic analysis of metapopulations (e.g. jaguar, tiger, rhino), or can more easily be defined by natural barriers (e.g. ecotone, desert, watershed, coast, mountain range). Once the ecological boundaries are determined / estimated, we then tailor our programs at a scale that matches those ecological parameters because all the forces within and on that landscape are those that are contributing to the conservation challenges.

Terrestrial species landscapes are typically a mosaic of natural habitat with no human settlements (e.g. protected areas, tiger reserves, or inaccessible areas), natural habitat with resident communities, and vast areas that include villages, towns and cities, as well as agriculture, industry and transport infrastructure. The human parts of landscapes rely on the services provided by environmental provisions and processes afforded by all the natural parts. And the ecological parts of the landscape rely on the human parts for safe passage and transfer (e.g. of genetic material or nutrient cycling), and the maintenance of the wider mosaic for biodiversity protection. We know, however, that this balance is being severely tested.

Socio-cultural: Second, the human needs must be recognized and considered at the same scale of the conservation challenge, because it is the human side putting pressure on natural systems globally. If we can work to mitigate this impact, plus shift toward sustainable practices, we can, in turn, take pressure off those environmental provisions and services we are trying to sustain across the landscape.

Overall, the approach is considered strategic, holistic and multi-disciplinary as it requires us to find solutions in each of the ecological, social and political spheres. Nested within the large landscapes are the site-based efforts (camera trapping, monitoring, patrolling, species protection, community partnerships) and priority sites (national parks, wetlands, natural forests, endangered species habitat) that underpin, or are the cornerstone of why WWF has a conservation program there. Those sites and efforts within the wider landscape are typically at the highest levels of purpose or vision for the WWF office in that country. Landscape programs in WWF, therefore, seek broad outcomes around maintenance of biodiversity, environmental provisions and services, sustainable economic development and production, and improved protected area management (WWF-International 2019).

Some organizations (and in some contexts, WWF as well) use only site-based, as opposed to, landscape approaches. This means they are focusing their effort largely on key biodiversity areas and not on the entire range or landscape of a given species or environmental service. The justification and scope of their site-based work becomes the site itself, and not the wider ecological context within which that site exists. The

reason for this could include: budget limitations; historical adoption of that site by the organization; strategic selection based on the mission of that organization; or just personal preference / selection. Various organizations believe that supporting the sustenance of separate breeding populations of particular species will be sufficient to maintain them in the long run.

While the landscape approach forces organizations to address increased ecological and socio-political complexity in design, it does offer up multiple challenges and opportunities:

• It firmly links the success of conservation programs with the social processes in the same landscape. While this is similar for conservation at any scale, transboundary conservation increases the level of complexity;

• It challenges what we consider or define as the landscape boundaries. i.e. boundaries could be based on environmental, cultural, or political lines. Regardless of the final mapped product, consensus is key but often takes many years to achieve;

• The need to work with many stakeholders, some of which are not traditional allies of the conservation sector. For instance, multi-stakeholder platforms may need to be established that include extractive industries, high value commodities, or those that are incompatible with our goals.

Additionally resources must be devoted to maintaining these platforms; • The need to try find balance between competing interests.

For example, how to balance the need to protect forests for conservation, forests for use and then support the intensification of productive land around them? Examples of viable and scalable projects with strong conservation elements have been difficult to achieve;

• The need to work beyond accepted ecological boundaries.

This means a lot of time taken up with work and processes outside where the focal wildlife or forests are;

• Accepting trade-offs and developments, that may not align strongly with the conservation goals, in order to get ‘wins’ in other parts of the landscape. For example, not opposing a road upgrade across a border, to ensure a nearby by river dam does not proceed by order of the same ministry;

• Supporting development or intensification to ensure food security and productive systems to offset or mitigate pressure on natural habitats;

• Achieving multi-stakeholder consensus / shared understanding on key issues, challenges and opportunities in the landscape;

• Influencing government policy, markets and financial environments that may be negatively impacting the landscape and the conservation goal; and

• Needing to consider all the above but in a transboundary landscape context.

BOX 1: A SNAPSHOT OF TRANSBOUNDARY TIGER LANDSCAPES THAT WWF SUPPORTS

Of the 12 tiger range countries WWF is active in, eight tiger landscapes are transboundary. They are considered to be transboundary in the sense that tigers do, can, or could move across the international border due to current / historical connectivity or dispersal patterns, and that the same levels of protection and management must be afforded to them on both sides of the border.

1. Terai Arc – India, Nepal

2. Transboundary Manas Conservation Area – India, Bhutan

3. Amur Heilong – Russia, China

4. Dawna Tenasserim – Myanmar, Thailand

5. Eastern Plains – Cambodia, Viet Nam

6. Banjaran Titiwangsa – Malaysia, Thailand

7. Sundarbans – India, Bangladesh

8. North West Myanmar – Myanmar, India (A non-WWF supported tiger landscape)

Each of the landscapes varies in terms of their socio-ecological and political elements and accordingly their transboundary work. Some (Terai Arc and Transboundary Manas) have extensive formal management arrangements for joint monitoring, data sharing, regular mechanisms for decisions-makers to physically meet, joint management planning, and resources devoted to transboundary activities. Others (Dawna Tenasserim, Sundarbans and AmurHeilong) have some of these systems in place and would be considered to be on a trajectory toward more systematic joint work and planning. Some landscapes recognize their transboundary linkages but after discussions have only led to proposals to coordinate effort (Eastern Plains), while others (Banjaran Titiwangsa and North West Myanmar) at the time of writing only had incipient plans to work across the border despite the critical need for tiger recovery.